[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: w3m -> standard, lynx -> optional

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:41:42PM +0100, Mateusz Papiernik wrote:

> I agree, that lynx is somehow past thing, and is not really friendly to 
> the end-user. But why w3m, and not e.g. links (eLinks acctually)? What 
> really important advantages it has against links? As I noticed, w3m 
> can't render page while downloading, and user must wait to finish, if he 
> wants to see the page.

  Also the upstream author of w3m was very vocal on the idea that w3m is
 not a browser; but a pager.

  I remember once sending a patch to him to implement a
 "homepage"/"start page" preference but he dropped it saying that it
 was designed for reading local files.

  (e)links is a much more capable browser with support for backgrounding
 and many other tasks.  Apart from the evilness of the name sounding so
 like lynx it's a much better choice IMHO.

# Debian Security Audit Project

Reply to: